Main menu

Post navigation

How I voted

In case you’re waiting until … now … to vote … or if you just want to see how my ballot-casting mind works … here’s how I voted this morning:

Afternoon update: Before you get to how this political spit-up began, I forgot to mention Angelides vs. Schwarzengger for governor. This bad boy is statewide, but Angelides inspires nothing within me as a voter. I think all the Democrats in Sacramento are plenty happy with Arnold and his willingness to work across the aisle since his special-election setback. The Dems in Sacramento (and statewide) seem to be pretty much accepting that it’s four more years of The Big A, and then an open field for Antonio Villaraigosa (we’ll call him Little A) and whoever plans to run against him for the Democratic nomination.

Phil Angelides never had a chance. So if I’m going to cast a vote in the wilderness, it’s going to the Green Party’s Peter Camejo. And while on the subject, it’s a good thing Antonio isn’t running for governor this time around, because he’s got lots of talk, not so much walk, at this stage in the L.A. mayoral game. We’ll see what happens in the next four years. But Angelides? They’ve got to be kidding. I feel for the guy. Didn’t he see “Pumping Iron”? The Dems needed Warren Beatty. Didn’t get him.

————————-

And now back to the beginning:

Since my work has more to do with “Borat” and less with ballot measures, I pretty much looked over the people and propositions involved in today’s elections for about 10 minutes before trotting over to the polling place, still in the same inconvenient apartment building rec room as last time — not in the ultra-convenient and parking-rich neighbor’s house down the street where we used to vote. This time, the new polling place housed not one but TWO voting precincts. It was a bit of a circus, having to be pre-checked and routed to one table or the other.

One cool thing about this year’s election: After voting, our “Inka-Vote” ballots were fed through some kind of electronic scanning machine to “verify” them. I hope they were counted right then and there, because that will certainly speed things up when the returns start being tabulated tonight.

Back to my ballot. Now I don’t watch all that many commercials. I fast-forward right through them (on a VCR, not TiVo, because I’m old school). But I do watch the news, and I actually read this very newspaper, not to mention others. I read a whole lot of blogs. I got so much campaign mail this election season that I threw out most of it unread … because it’s unreadable propagandist crap. Sorry, candidates and committees, you wasted your money, .

First of all, I should mention that some journalists think those in the profession (not the world’s oldest, but not generally held in any higher regard) shouldn’t vote at all. While I see their point, I do vote, but I have been registered as “nonpartisan” for as long as I can remember. That’s more because I find being considered a member of one of the two major political parties a potential conflict of interest on the one hand, and extremely distasteful on the other.

My voting strategy for candidates: None of the races on our ballot are close. I have a soft spot for Democrat Jerry Brown, the man with an entourage of one, and was happy to vote for him for state attorney general. He’s an iconoclast, and that I admire.

Lloyd Levine (State Assembly) and Brad Sherman (U.S. House) are not iconoclasts. They also have their jobs for as long as term limits (in Levine’s case) or sheer longevity (for term-limit-free Sherman) allow. There’s not even any non-major-party opposition, so these two knuckleheads did get my vote. Reluctantly.

That whole flap with Levine’s father, the guy behind one of those “Democratic” voter guides, taking money from tobacco and oil interests to urge a “no” vote on props 86 and 87 (I can’t find the Web link for where I heard about this) leaves a bad taste … and I did pause, but still Inka’d for Lloyd, although I didn’t feel good about it.

For the other races, since they aren’t anywhere near close, and the candidates on both sides haven’t said anything that has me cheering for them, I pretty much cast my vote for the Green Party candidates. I feel comfortable with the environmental message of the Green Party, and were things not pre-rigged to elect Democrats, my vote for candidates from that party might actually mean something. But as things stand, it really does not. (So if I leaned Republican, which I don’t, I guess I’d vote for the Libertarian Party.)

None of the Democrats on the ballot (from Sen. Dianne Feinstein down to controller candidate John Chiang) either needs my vote to win, or made much of any attempt to secure it. So they didn’t get it. Especially when it comes to Feinstein, how can you get excited about her work in the Senate? Maybe if the Democrats get the majority, we’ll hear from her, but either she’s done next to nothing in her many years in the U.S. Senate or is very quiet about it. She’s no Ted Kennedy, or even Joe Biden … i.e. someone who I’d actually recognize were I not from California.

The machine politics of the major parties just chug along, and safe seats breed apathetic voters.

I’m not a big fan of ballot propositions. They’re almost always poorly written, and the case for their success is often poorly stated. Why vote for an imperfect measure? Why keep on taxing myself? I don’t know. But I do know that ballot measures that are bond issues and which don’t regressively hit property owners exclusively, are more palatable to me. If the money to pay off the bonds comes from the general fund, I’m happier about it.

1C, Housing bond. This one was tough. Ditto for L.A.’s Measure H. But I’m in favor of affordable housing for seniors and the homeless, and I had to support both.

1D, school bond. Normally I’d balk. Seems that for construction, the LAUSD has plenty of money. But this is also for state colleges, and they could sure use some upgraded facilities. So yes on that.

But … Proposition 88, the parcel tax for K-12 education? I even have a child who will be in LAUSD eventually. But this is a statewide measure, and I’ve heard almost nothing about it. LAUSD is in major turmoil, given the Villaraigosa/Brewer transition. And a flat $50 parcel tax? That means I will pay $50. Madonna pays $50. Warren Buffet pays $50. Forget about it. I voted no. Come back with a compelling campaign as to why there’s not already enough money in the hopper for education, make the tax progressive (or even make it a sales tax) and I’ll reconsider. But $50 for every homeowner, on top of every other special assessment, is just too much.

1E — Flood control. Gotta deal with that levee situation, or we could be in real trouble. Yes.

83, “Jessica’s Law.” I’ve been on the Megan’s Law database, and it seems like there are thousands of sex offenders living in Van Nuys, hundreds in my neighborhood alone. That’s an easy yes on the measure for GPS monitoring and the 2,000-foot-limit on living near a school or park.

84, water quality. Water, it’s what L.A. is all about. Yes.

85, the abortion waiting period and parental notification for minors. Big no. Even though I’d want to be involved, were I in such a situation, but it’s still the pregnant woman — minor or otherwise — who should have ultimate control. I imagine that most girls in this situation would involve their parents, but I don’t think the law needs to mandate it. If a girl wants an abortion, and the parents are opposed, I still think it should be her choice — and her choice whether to involve them.

86, cigarette tax. I don’t smoke, and I am uncomfortable legislating morality, but hospitals could really use the money. I realize it’s kind of hypocritical to talk about “regressive” taxes and then be whacking smokers in the knees, but the effects of smoking on society — those people get sick and die quicker — are too much to ignore. Sorry, smokers.

87, oil-production tax. Did I mention my affinity for the Green Party and environmentalism in general? This kind of thing is right up my alley. The recent lowering of gas prices has me plenty suspicious. So I’m enjoying the low gas prices while they last, but California needs to be a leader on this issue.

89, public campaign financing. Honestly, if the League of Women voters is for it, and the California Republican Party and the California Federation of Teachers are against it, it’s gotta be good. Public financing could really level the playing field in California politics. A “yes” vote.

90, to restrict government’s use of eminent domain. I voted no only because I just couldn’t make up my mind. I had that proposition glaze that one gets when there are over 10 of these on the ballot. It’s an issue I’m willing to revisit in the future.

Getting back to the nameless and faceless, I made a major change in my voting habits this election and voted for Superior Court judge.

Why? I actually saw a judicial candidate in the flesh: Janice Barquist, running for Superior Court Judge Seat No. 144, who made an appearance and spoke at the recent Van Nuys Neighborhood Council meeting.

Many in attendance were surprised that a judicial candidate actually did some campaigning, and they were ready to vote for her right then and there because she was suddenly more than an anonymous name on the ballot. And she has a lot of experience, the latest being more than seven years as a deputy city attorney.

Well, I had to fall in with all the “stakeholders” of Van Nuys and cast my first judicial vote in a very long time for Ms. Barquist (I usually skip the judicial offices because I have no basis on which to cast my vote).

So can anybody be a judge? Do you even need to be a lawyer? Seems that you can do a little campaigning and win, even if you haven’t the slightest idea of how to be a judge. All I know is that anonymous people running in actual elections is not what democracy is all about. Kudos to Ms. Barquist for putting herself out there.